Senators want courts out of school money

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Senate leaders on Thursday proposed a constitutional amendment aimed at keeping Missouri courts out of school-funding decisions.

Sen. Matt Bartle introduced a resolution that -- if approved by the legislature and statewide voters -- would spell out that school-funding decisions belong only in the hands of the legislature and governor, not the judicial branch.

Senate Majority Leader Charlie Shields and Senate education chairman Gary Nodler also endorsed the proposal, as did fellow Republican Gov. Matt Blunt.

"I don't think courts have a right to impose a tax increase on the people of this state," Blunt said.

The senators said it makes no sense for taxpayer money to be spent on litigation by local school governments against the state government when schools are struggling to cover their costs.

"Their tax money is being spent, tens of thousands of dollars a month right now ... to prosecute a lawsuit against themselves," said Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Right now only the lawyers are benefiting from this setup."

Bartle's resolution addresses a lawsuit filed last year by school districts, parents and others that claims Missouri fails to provide enough money to schools, and that the money it does provide is handed out unfairly.

The senators denied that people would no longer have a remedy if they think the school-funding system is flawed, saying their response would be to vote against elected officials in power.

Nodler, R-Joplin, said even if a court orders more money spent on schools, it has no way to enforce its ruling. That's because state spending decisions must be approved by the legislature.

Alex Bartlett, the lead attorney for the more than 250 school districts that filed suit against the state last year, said the senators' idea goes against the philosophy of three separate branches of government.

"It seems to me it's an unnecessary breach of the concept of separation of powers that's long been a part of our constitution," he said. "I hope they will spend their time working on a new formula rather than take up a lot of energy and time over this."

The resolution, if passed by the House and Senate, would go on the statewide ballot at the governor's call or in November 2006, where voters must approve it before it would take effect.

At first, the lawmakers said the restrictions were meant to apply only to school districts, and that parents or students still should be able to sue. Parents and students are among those challenging the formula in court now. The proposed language makes no such distinction, saying, "the power to determine public school funding shall not fall within the province of the judiciary."

Later, Bartle clarified, saying people still could pursue a perceived wrong in federal court.

"This is going to end lawsuits questioning whether appropriation power should be within the legislative branch or within the judicial branch," he said.

With the lawsuit pending, lawmakers are trying to overhaul the school funding formula this year.

"That belongs to us and the citizens of the state and not an unelected judiciary," said Shields, R-St. Joseph.

Shields denied the lawsuit is the driving factor behind writing a new formula, saying legislators were headed that way regardless.

"We would be where we are today even if the lawsuit had not been filed," Shields said.

But a legislative report last year from a panel Shields led acknowledged that changes in the formula are nearly always the result of a court order.